Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[robrecht]

And how am I supposed to get his books? I don't have a job or anything so I cant buy them and I doubt my parents would buy me them now. (if they are available)

There are a variety of methods that I would recommend. 1) Get a job if you can. 2) Convince your parents of the importance of your studies. 3) Is there an academic or theology library nearby? 4) Is there a less academic library that participates in an interlibrary loan process? Finally, if all of the above fail, once you have learned Greek and Aramaic, I will lend you my copies.

[Quantum Weirdness]

As I said above, the overwhelming majority of scholars would disagree. In your link, Eta merely mentions her view that there is no synoptic problem and footnotes her earlier book. If you want to understand her argument, you should read that book. With respect to this article on Q, Eta is not quite right about Papias using the words τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα in parallel with τὰ λόγια.

What is meant by Globally? I know that scholars disagree and in this case, I do too.

Linnemann.

Ok


It was a critique of her use of statistics (as well as other scholars) and data which appeared to confirm her findings
31 pages down to 33 pages down

Are you assuming that Peter also knew Greek well or do you think he could only read aloud what Matthew had written?

Enough so that he could read what Matthew had said. I don't think he exactly read Matthew when preaching but would have used the Greek of Matthew in a conversational tone. As for Peter reading Greek, I'm not so sure he could but even if he couldn't, Mark would have read it to him for him to understand. (Mark did handle Peter's documents and could write Greek after all and this would also explain his familiarity with the gospel)

Why do you suppose that Peter and then Mark left out so much material from Jesus' long discourses in Matthew? Was Peter less interested in what Jesus taught? For example, did he not care for the beatitudes or the Lord's prayer?

21
Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. [Miracles]
23 [Arrest, condemnation, death and resurrection like Mark 14-16]
25 David said about him:


https://bible.org/seriespage/mark-in...nt-and-outline

This would have been the stuff that Peter would have preached of mainly and what Mark would have likely at least remembered. (although it cannot be said for sure what Mark would have remembered). When Peter was preaching, he would have preached more of the above and emphasized less the teaching (he was something akin to a missionary after all). In any case, Mark would have learned from Peter as well as the Gospel of Matthew . The reason Mark wouldn't have rewritten Matthew is because he wrote down his gospel from all he remembered (which implies that he forgot some stuff). That would be my explanation as to why Mark didn't write things like the Sermon on the mount.

[Quantum Weirdness]

As for the verbal parallels:

"Norman E. Reed has pointed out the problem of statistical studies of the gospels along with the reasonable nature of Linnemann's results seen within that milieu. He points out that B. H. Streeter finds a 51% agreement between Matthew and Mark in actual wording. Morganthaler finds 77% agreement in overall substance, 38% if agreement be defined as identical wording. Carson, Moo, and Morris say that 97% of Mark is paralleled in Matthew, citing Robert Stein's The Synoptic Problem, which says that "97.2% of the words in Mark have a parallel in Matthew."Reed shows that Stein's figure is far too high and is based on a dubious interpretation of Tyson and
Longstaff.

read from here onward (pg 31 I think)
see http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj8h.pdf

In other words, while they write about the same thing, they don't write about it the same way. If I were to look at the data above and estimate the percentage that Matt and Mark are similar verbally, I would suggest a value between 40%-60% and the criteria doesn't exactly sound too strict (eg two words consecutively is the strictest?) This sounds like Mark is recalling Matt from memory (and the memory would basically be the things that Peter preached about+other things he remembered).

Yes, eg, קריסטוס for Χριστός and מאוונגיילייו for εὐαγγέλιον.

I doubt these are technical terminology though (eg isn't Χριστός=Maschiah). They, honestly speaking, do suggest a translation.

I don't think the gospel was written by a community, but nor do I think it was the Apostle Matthew. An early version of a Q sayings source in Aramaic or Hebrew could date back to Matthew, which is what Papias seems to say. Matthew might have founded or visited the community where the Q source was first written down or where it was eventually translated into Greek. This is all wildly hypothetical, and therefore not the subject of disciplined scholarship, but such would also account for the tradition quoted by Papias sometime in the early 2nd century.

It's debatable whether or not Papias said that in reference to a sayings source (we should know!!!) but the church has never interpreted traditions like this otherwise. That makes me a bit suspicious.

And note that Eusebius did not consider Papias to be that reliable but rather gullible for mythical material.

That's related to eschatology from what I remember but why would Eusebius cite Papias if he didn't think he was competent enough to pass on the tradition?

There's just no way of knowing these things in this life, but I look forward to some very interesting conversations in the world to come. I will ask all the evangelists for their autographs.

I suppose you are right to an extent.

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew...nt-and-outline

There are very good reasons why it has not been proposed in the way you propose it. And you have not made a good case for why anyone should believe your theories. I do not mean any offense by this, but do you seriously believe that the worldwide body of New Testament scholars have been waiting for the past few centuries for you to come up with your theory?

Again, I haven't seen it and I do think it rolls better with the external evidence. The Augustinian Hypothesis was discarded because there wasn't much explanation as to why Mark would leave out certain stuff and why Mark would have additional information in periscopes that are common to both Matt and Mark. There is also the Argument from redaction (the 7th one by Wallace). I think mine avoids these problems though by simply positing that Mark forgot some of Matt's information and included other stuff based on Peter's preaching (and perhaps, Peter talking to him).

[Quantum Weirdness]

There are a variety of methods that I would recommend. 1) Get a job if you can. 2) Convince your parents of the importance of your studies. 3) Is there an academic or theology library nearby? 4) Is there a less academic library that participates in an interlibrary loan process? Finally, if all of the above fail, once you have learned Greek and Aramaic, I will lend you my copies.

I cant do one since I'm in school still
My parents wouldn't be convinced since they aren't that religious and want me to focus on school work
3 and 4 wouldn't exactly be options because there is no academic library nearby (and it;s not likely to contain NT scholarship) and neither is the regular ones.
I can't learn Aramaic and Greek now because of constraints but it is nice of you to offer

[shunyadragon]

I cant do one since I'm in school still
My parents wouldn't be convinced since they aren't that religious and want me to focus on school work
3 and 4 wouldn't exactly be options because there is no academic library nearby (and it;s not likely to contain NT scholarship) and neither is the regular ones.
I can't learn Aramaic and Greek now because of constraints but it is nice of you to offer

The internet is your best option following robrecht's lead. You're young, and if you're serious Biblical scholarship is just around the corner.

[Quantum Weirdness]

You dispute them--well and good. But to refute them, you must construct a hypothesis that has equal or better explanatory power for ALL the evidence--including the double and triple tradition. To do so without any knowledge of the Greek would be, in my estimation, about as difficult as refuting QM without the math.

I think I did (although I do have more to learn TBF). And I think I do understand the argument. Wallace used an argument like this to argue for 2 Peter's priority over Jude for instance.
QM is far more objective than this field so I doubt it requires the same level.

Not in this case. Linnemann rejects the synoptic problem without solving it by stating that it doesn't exist, a position that (as robrecht notes) is nearly universally rejected. Her rejection is not based in evidence, but in faith and a rejection of evidence-based scholarship, which she largely demonizes.

While she is sermonizing TBF, she does have data corroborated elsewhere. And she is a scholar.

Miller makes clear in other articles (using this information as "evidence") that the documentary hypothesis is dying out because Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That is ... well, it's not honest.

He never says anything relating the documentary Hypothesis to his conclusion though.

The synoptic problem does not depend upon technical knowledge? QW, That's not a rebuttal--that's nothing more than handwaving the problem away.

The technical data definitely requires knowledge of the Greek. I'm disputing the conclusions they get from the data.

At this point, in all reality, the simplest thing for you to do is to put these questions from your mind completely. I do not mean that as an insult. Once you start digging into the evidence, you will be forced to deny or ignore the evidence that does not support your views (one form of intellectual dishonesty), or you will shatter your own faith once you finally understand what the evidence is, and what it actually indicates.

I doubt. I have no problem with Markan priority. (Because I accepted it once and really didn't bother much. Wallace's arguments for the authorship of Matt still hold)

There's nothing wrong with refusing to delve into a situation that requires scholarly inquiry, especially when you lack the specialized knowledge that is quite necessary. If you do so, you will most likely live a long, happy life as a Christian. But I beg you, with all sincerity, to simply take your views as a statement of faith, and do not attempt to persuade people that your views are supported by the evidence.

Of course, there isn't. I just enjoy doing it.

As for me, I will not discuss this question with you any further. Again, I do not mean that as an insult, but I will not take part in you destroying your faith.

My faith has survived far worse (including internal debates about eschatology, Historicity of the bible etc.) Honestly, I feel pretty secure with it

[robrecht]

What is meant by Globally? I know that scholars disagree and in this case, I do too.

You're not sure what I mean, but you already know you disagree???

So what is your evidence that Mark was dependent on Matthew (directly and indirectly through Peter)?

[robrecht]

I doubt these are technical terminology though (eg isn't Χριστός=Maschiah). They, honestly speaking, do suggest a translation.

Sounds like you have a different understanding of what technical terminology is, namely ...?

It's debatable whether or not Papias said that in reference to a sayings source (we should know!!!) but the church has never interpreted traditions like this otherwise. That makes me a bit suspicious.

So debate it then.

That's related to eschatology from what I remember but why would Eusebius cite Papias if he didn't think he was competent enough to pass on the tradition?

No, it was a general comment, not specifically related to eschatology. He cited Papias because his work was the only source he had. That's what historians do; they cite sources. And Eusebius also was circumspect about the quality of this particular source.

I suppose you are right to an extent.

And to what extent do you think I'm wrong, and why?

"Unsupported" from the internal evidence.

You're theory also lacks external support.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Sounds like you have a different understanding of what technical terminology is, namely ...?

To my understanding, technical terminology are words in a language that is used to refer to a concept that doesn't exist in other languages (eg piano in Italian)

So debate it then.

We are.

No, it was a general comment, not specifically related to eschatology. He cited Papias because his work was the only source he had. That's what historians do; they cite sources. And Eusebius also was circumspect about the quality of this particular source.

Can you cite it though? I really like to see the context

And to what extent do you think I'm wrong, and why?

you can know these things to an extent by checking what evidence there is.

You're theory also lacks external support.

*sigh* Debatable. And we have been debating this, haven't we?

[robrecht]

To my understanding, technical terminology are words in a language that is used to refer to a concept that doesn't exist in other languages (eg piano in Italian)

Technical terms are not limited to words from foreign languages.

We are.

No, you merely said it is debatable. I've yet to see you make a case that my understanding of Papias is wrong.

Can you cite it though? I really like to see the context

3,39,11-13
The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings (ξένας παραβολὰς καὶ διδασκαλίας) of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things (ἄλλα μυθικώτερα). To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding (παρεκδεξάμενον) of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving (μὴ συνεορακότα) that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding (σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν), as one can see from his words.

As you can see, eschatology is only one example of the 'more mythical' things Papias related as well as some strange parables and teachings. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that Eusebius' appraisal of his very limited intelligence was limited to his eschatological beliefs.

you can know these things to an extent by checking what evidence there is.

*sigh* Debatable. And we have been debating this, haven't we?

I've yet to see you present any evidence for your view.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Technical terms are not limited to words from foreign languages.

Ok

No, you merely said it is debatable. I've yet to see you make a case that my understanding of Papias is wrong.

-There is no alternative tradition that developed which would be expected if Papias meant logia in a sense that was not referring to Matthew's gospel
-The tradition itself is quite strong
- Eusebius at least considers him reliable here (though not so in other places. But that's likely due to his disagreement with Papias)

3,39,11-13
The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings (ξένας παραβολὰς καὶ διδασκαλίας) of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things (ἄλλα μυθικώτερα). To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding (παρεκδεξάμενον) of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving (μὴ συνεορακότα) that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding (σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν), as one can see from his words.


As you can see, eschatology is only one example of the 'more mythical' things Papias related as well as some strange parables and teachings. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that Eusebius' appraisal of his very limited intelligence was limited to his eschatological beliefs.

Ok then.

I've yet to see you present any evidence for your view.

See above

[robrecht]

Ok

-There is no alternative tradition that developed which would be expected if Papias meant logia in a sense that was not referring to Matthew's gospel
-The tradition itself is quite strong
- Eusebius at least considers him reliable here (though not so in other places. But that's likely due to his disagreement with Papias)

Ok then.

See above

Alternative tradition? What do you mean exactly? We have no other evidence from this period but that of Papias.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Alternative tradition? What do you mean exactly? We have no other evidence from this period but that of Papias.

Why didn't anybody understand the logia to refer to anything other than the Gospel of Matthew especially if that is what Papias was intending by use of the word logia?

[robrecht]

Why didn't anybody understand the logia to refer to anything other than the Gospel of Matthew especially if that is what Papias was intending by use of the word logia?

Who says they did not? No one quotes him until much later, at a time when there were four canonical gospels, one of which was attributed to Matthew.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Who says they did not? No one quotes him until much later, at a time when there were four canonical gospels, one of which was attributed to Matthew.

You would think that it would at least be mentioned or survive until the fairly late second century (Papias did live until 155 C.E.). But those like Origen (who probably got his information from Clement of Alexandria) only show knowledge of the traditional interpretation.

There is also the fact that Eusebius would have actually known the context of Papias' statement. I don't think he would have confused it at all. The only evidence we have of anything being said to have been written by Matt in the early church is a Hebrew gospel.

Besides this, wouldn't it make more sense for Papias to give the origin of something that was actually used (was this sayings source used in the early second century as opposed to or with the Gospels?)